From: James Bowery
If Mills discloses he deserves credit for that. By "discloses" I mean what the patent office means: Provides sufficient information in the patent disclosure for those skilled in the art to realize beneficial use independent of the inventor. You've seen his recent patent application. Even at 325 pages - does it disclose anything that the other patents relating to electrical discharge through water have missed? Or is it "designed to deceive" - which seems to be the consensus here on Vortex, when we discussed this patent application earlier. There are well over 2 million hits on google relating to patents for electrical discharge through water. Where is the novelty in Mills? . other than, of course, the bald claim that the discharge is not really through water nor through HHO but is through Mills version in which one of the hydrogen atoms is in a reduced orbital making it more of a catalyst. and even then, Mills has not shown that the HHO species of prior art does not, in fact, conform identically to his version. I feel sorry for the BLP attorneys. They have surely told him that theories are not patentable no matter how great they are. I doubt if the attorneys are as incompetent as this application suggests. Most likely they were ordered to do the impossible: which is to try to patent a device which has been known in prior art for decades. Jones
